New NIST Report On WTC 7 - Change Anybody's Mind?

[Alex_Dubinsky]

@Cisco

You know, the thermite that no one has ever found any evidence of and has never been used to demolish a building before.

Take a look at the NIST FAQ.

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) “slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.”

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

What’s up with that?

[Larry_Borgia]

@Alex_Dubinsky

Take a look at the NIST FAQ.

What’s up with that?

“What’s up with that” is explained in the rest of the document you linked to.

[tomndebb]

@Alex_Dubinsky

What’s up with that?

What? Did your 'puter swallow the rest of the very point you were quoting?

To continue the response that you (apparently deliberately) truncated:

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

Now, I have admonished other posters (in the thread or privately) to refrain from baiting or insulting you in this thread.
However, your question, here, when the answer was provided by the very web page that you cited beginning with the very next line in the link demonstrates the sort of disingenuous nonsense that has prompted other posters to suggest that you are just trolling and, with the evidence you have provided here, I am beginning to agree with them.

If you have a serious question regarding the WTC collapse, then you are welcome to post it, but this sort of baiting question that compels anyone who wishes to point out how stupid the question might be to invest a lot of energy posting a reply that it appears you will ignore, anyway, will stop, now.

[ /Moderating ]

[Alex_Dubinsky]

You’re right. I was being a little facetious. (Though it looks you got really upset.) The NIST goes on to say that they didn’t test for explosives or thermite because a) obviously explosives and thermite weren’t used and b) if they had tested for them, they probably would have found them:

@NIST FAQ

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

[CurtC]

@Alex_Dubinsky

What’s up with that?

Read the rest of the answer, and they explain it to you.

The NIST report on the collapse of the Twin Towers was completed in 2005, mostly before the delusional mob started suggesting they were controlled demolitions.

Even though they didn’t test, there was zero evidence for explosives or incendiaries, and lots and lots of evidence for fires, which they did comprehensive tests about.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Alex_Dubinsky

(Though it looks you got really upset.)

It does? Where?

[ivan_astikov]

@Bryan Ekers

It does? Where?

Is that a rhetorical question, or did you not notice the word “BANNED” beneath Alex’s name? Wakey, wakey, Bryan.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@ivan astikov

Is that a rhetorical question, or did you not notice the word “BANNED” beneath Alex’s name? Wakey, wakey, Bryan.

It can’t have been the ban Alex was referring to, since once he was banned he wouldn’t have been able to post.

[tomndebb]

@ivan astikov

Is that a rhetorical question, or did you not notice the word “BANNED” beneath Alex’s name? Wakey, wakey, Bryan.

Actually, if you will notice the thread in ATMB announcing his suspension, you will note that my admonition, here, was not even one of the issues that led to his suspension and you should also note that my post did not even include a Warning.

That decision was made while I was otherwise occupied and, while his actions, here, did nothing to argue for his continued active membership, they did not play a role in his departure.

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

@ivan astikov

Is that a rhetorical question, or did you not notice the word “BANNED” beneath Alex’s name? Wakey, wakey, Bryan.

Actually, Bryan posted his question a full 6 hours prior to Alex’s ban (or at least 6 hours prior to the ATMB thread announcing the ban.) So when Bryan posted that, the word BANNED was most likely not underneath his name.

Seriously, buddy, take a break. Order this book from Amazon. Try a new hobby. Go down to the corner and spring for a blow job. Go shopping. Do something to relax. You’re going to give yourself a coronary.

[ivan_astikov]

My bad, Bryan. Do you want to call me an eedjit again? I’ll have deserved it this time.

[Cisco]

@ivan astikov

Is that a rhetorical question, or did you not notice the word “BANNED” beneath Alex’s name? Wakey, wakey, Bryan.

The SDMB staff were in on it and they’re trying to put a wrench in the gears of your truth machine, right? :rolleyes:

[ivan_astikov]

@Cisco

The SDMB staff were in on it and they’re trying to put a wrench in the gears of your truth machine, right? :rolleyes:

Not really. I just let my finger prod away uncontrollably at times; it’s pure luck when I produce a coherent sentence.

[Cervaise]

@ivan astikov

I just let my finger prod away uncontrollably at times

Please tell me that when this is happening you are firmly seated.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@ivan astikov

My bad, Bryan. Do you want to call me an eedjit again? I’ll have deserved it this time.

That would be a violation of GD rules.

[jimigorilla]

@ivan_astikov

I haven’t got the credentials to answer your question to the satisfaction of GD standards, and I’m only responding because you specifically address me. All I am suggesting is that IF it was at all possible to have brought those buildings down deliberately, the likelihood should AT LEAST be investigated. And there are obviously more than a few people who think the same way as me.

corrected for typo.

It would appear that at least two of these buildings were brought down deliberatley by flying airplanes into them. So there’s no mystery there. And if we have to investigate everything that’s possible, we have a lot on our hands. It is possible, for instance, that George W. Bush is really the Zodiac Killer. We should investigate that. It is also possible that the Vatican runs an international drugs and prostitution syndicate. So let’s investigate that as well. And what about the possibilty that Ivan Astikov is really an extraterrestrial agent whose job it is to confuse us poor humans with conspiracy theories so we will be ripe for the picking when the aliens are ready to invade? Shouldn’t we investigate that also?

[ivan_astikov]

@jimigorilla

It would appear that at least two of these buildings were brought down deliberatley by flying airplanes into them. So there’s no mystery there. And if we have to investigate everything that’s possible, we have a lot on our hands. It is possible, for instance, that George W. Bush is really the Zodiac Killer. We should investigate that. It is also possible that the Vatican runs an international drugs and prostitution syndicate. So let’s investigate that as well. And what about the possibilty that Ivan Astikov is really an extraterrestrial agent whose job it is to confuse us poor humans with conspiracy theories so we will be ripe for the picking when the aliens are ready to invade? Shouldn’t we investigate that also?

Of those four possible scenarios, which one being right or wrong might possibly have a bearing on the fate of modern society?

[jimigorilla]

@ivan_astikov

Of those four possible scenarios, which one being wrong might possibly have a bearing on the fate of modern society?

If GWB really were the zodiac killer, that would be of some importance to modern society, I’d say. And if you are really an extraterrestrial agent, it is paramount that you be exposed for what you are!

[ivan_astikov]

@jimigorilla

If GWB really were the zodiac killer, that would be of some importance to modern society, I’d say. And if you are really an extraterrestrial agent, it is paramount that you be exposed for what you are!

First Straightdope, and then the world! Bwahahahaha…

[EasyPhil]

There’s a few wacky architects and engineers that are challenging the NIST report.

World Trade Center Investigation

In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very longlasting),
not one has collapsed, ever. So it behooves all of us, as your own former chief of
NIST’s Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, “to look at real alternatives that might
have been the cause of these collapses.”2